mr. speaker , i rise in support of this bipartisan bill , and i will submit today 's column in the wall street journal written by dr .  david a. shaywitz , an endocrinologist in stem cell research at harvard , for the record .  i would call to the attention of my colleagues this column and particularly a couple of lines that he wrote today .  i must say that i am one that will be voting for both bills today , the cord bill as well as the castle/degette bill ; but as you compare these two bills , let me note a couple of things that this noted researcher says .  he says : `` presently , only the few lines established prior to the date , '' this is in reference to the president 's initial plan back in 2001 , `` are eligible for government support , a prohibition that has had a crippling effect on researchers in this emerging field. '' it further says , it relates to the cord bill , in essence : `` it seems extremely unlikely that adult blood cells or blood cells from the umbilical cord will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else but blood. '' mr. speaker , there are few families that i know that have not been impacted by a myriad of these diseases .  we need help .  we need to find a cure , and that is why we need to support both pieces of legislation this afternoon .  the stem cell debate perhaps themost underrated achievement of the modern conservative movement has been a renewed appreciation for the danger of `` junk science '' -- unsubstantiated scientific research that is exploited for political gain .  how sad , then , that in the ongoing debate over stem cell research , many conservatives have chosen to abandon their well-founded skepticism and to embrace dubious but convenient data for the sake of advancing their cause .  the latest tempest has emerged from remarkably modest congressional legislation , proposed by republican michael castle and democrat diana degette and scheduled for a vote today , which would permit federal funds to be used on human embryonic stem cell lines derived after aug .  9 , 2001 .  presently , only the few lines established prior to this date are eligible for government support , a prohibition that has had a crippling effect on research in this emerging field .  human embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into any adult cell type .  if this process of specialization could be achieved in the lab , scientists might be able to create replacement pancreas cells for diabetics , or neurons for patient with parkinson 's disease ; these treatments are likely many years away .  for some opponents of embryonic stem cell science , the argument is fundamentally one of faith : the human embryo should be held as sacrosanct , and not used for the pursuit of any ends , regardless of how nobly intended .  the trouble for such dogmatic critics of embryonic stem cell research is that most americans hold a less extreme position ; given a choice between discarding frozen , excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics or allowing the cells to be used for medical research -- specifically , the generation of new embryonic stem cell lines -- most of us would choose the second .  consequently , conservative stem cell opponents have now begun to argue in earnest that embryonic stem cell research is not just morally wrong , but also unnecessary , an argument that relies on suspect science and appears motivated by even more questionable principles .  first , the science : opponents of the castle-degette legislation assert that embryonic stem cells are unnecessary because adult stem cells , as well as umbilical cord blood stem cells , will perform at least as well as embryonic stem cells , and have already demonstrated their therapeutic value .  this argument appears very popular , and has been articulated by almost every member of congress who has spoken out against the new stem cell bill .  to be sure , one of the great successes of modern medicine has been the use of adult blood stem cells to treat patients with leukemia .  the trouble is generalizing from this : there are very strong data suggesting that while blood stem cells are good at making new blood cells , they are not able to turn into other types of cells , such as pancreas or brain .  the limited data purported to demonstrate the contrary are preliminary , inconclusive , unsubstantiated , or all three .  thus , it seems extremely unlikely that adult bloodcells -- or blood cells from the umbilical cord -- will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else by blood .  moreover , while stem cells seem to exist for some cell types in the body -- the blood and the intestines , for example -- many adult tissues such as the pancreas , may not have stem cells at all .  thus , relying on adult stem cells to generate replacement insulin-producing cells for patients with diabetes is probably an exercise in futility .  for true believers , of course , these scientific facts should be beside the point ; if human embryonic stem cell research is morally , fundamentally , wrong , then it should be wrong , period , regardless of the consequences to medical research .  if conservatives believe their own rhetoric , they should vigorously critique embryonic stem cell research on its own grounds , and not rely upon an appeal to utilitarian principles .  instead , there has been a concerted effort to establish adult stem cells as a palatable alternative to embryonic stem cells .  in the process , conservatives seem to have left their usual concern for junk science at the laboratory door , citing in their defense preliminary studies and questionable data that they would surely -- and appropriately -- have ridiculed were it not supporting their current point of view .  in fact , there is little credible evidence to suggest adult stem cells have the same therapeutic potential as embryonic stem cells .  conservatives often speak of the need to abide by difficult principle ; acknowledging the limitations of adult stem cell research would seem like a good place to start .  human embryonic stem cell research represents one of the most important scientific frontiers , and also one of the most controversial : our national debate on it deserves to be informed by our loftiest ethical aspirations -- but also grounded in our most rigorous scientific standards .  